SAHIB GUL vs STATE
The petitioner, Sahib Gul, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, following the recovery of 5 kilograms of contraband. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the discrepancy between the contraband described in the FIR (Chars Garda) and the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report (Chars Pukhta), and whether the quantity recovered warranted the denial of bail under the prohibitory clause. The Court held that the discrepancy regarding the nature of the contraband rendered the case one of further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court observed that Chars Garda requires processing, which would reduce the net weight of the substance, casting doubt on whether the maximum sentence would be applicable. Emphasizing that bail does not equate to acquittal and noting that the investigation was complete, the Court granted the petition. The key principle laid down is that where there is a material discrepancy in the description of recovered narcotics and doubt regarding the final quantity after processing, the case warrants further inquiry, entitling the accused to bail.
- Does a discrepancy between the description of contraband in the FIR and the FSL report constitute a ground for further inquiry in bail matters?
- Is the recovery of Chars Garda subject to weight reduction due to the baking and chemical process required to convert it into Chars Pukhta?
- Does the potential for a reduced sentence based on the actual quantity of processed narcotics entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- Section 9-C, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' Petitioner Sahib Gul, seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 66 dated 17.08.2014 registered u/S. 9-C, CNSA, Police Station ANF Peshawar.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was apprehended by the complainant and on his personal search Chars Garda weighing 05 K.G was recovered and the case was registered under the captioned FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the FIR 05 K.G chars Garda is mentioned while in the FSL report chars Pukhta is given which shows the case of petitioner, is one of further enquiry, that it will be determined during trial that whether the report of FSL is with regard to the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner. It was further contended that maximum sentence for the recovered contraband is not of capital punishment; therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail.
4. Conversely the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State contended that huge quantity of narcotics has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The offence also falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. It was further contended that the offence is heinous in nature and also affects the society at large therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
' Arguments heard and with the valuable assistance of learned counsel for the parties record perused.
5. From the perusal of record, there is contradiction in respect of shape of the contraband that whether Chars garda was recovered or chars pukhta as in murasila and recovery memo. Chars garda is mentioned, while in FSL report chars Pukhta is given which lead the case of petitioner to one of further inquiry. Moreover, if during trial it is proved that chars Garda was recovered then as held by Apex Court it is not chars in its entirely and is always subject to baking and chemical process and quantity has to be reduced. It is settled law that quantum of sentence has to commensurate with the quantum of substance recovered; I doubt that the petitioner can be awarded maximum sentence provided by statute. Petitioner is behind the bars, since the date of his arrest. Investigation is already complete and the petitioner is no more required for investigation.
Admittedly the grant of bail does not amount to acquittal of the accused, as the custody of accused is shifted from judicial lockup to the hands of the sureties, who are made responsible to produce the accused in the Court as and when required.
' In view of what has been discussed above, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail provided he furnishes bail bonds to the tune of Rs, 5,00,000/- (Five lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Judicial Magistrate, concerned, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.